Subject: Message Length Field

From: [email-masked] (Paul Brittain)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 94 14:00:40 BST

Steve and Lakshman,

Using one of the reserved bytes for a header length sounds good.  We will still
need to try to keep the CAP-EX header looking near enough to a control header
to facilitate working with back level partners, but they should ignore the
reserved fields so this change doesn't conflict with that.  It will also make
SSP message parsing considerably more robust to future change.

Paul Brittain
Data Connection

Appended Mail:
==============
>From: "Steve Klein (254-5623)" <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: SSP Message Header Length Field
>Subject: note from Lakshman Garikapaty dated Tue, 7 Jun 94 16:38:37 EDT
>Status: RO
>
>I think Lakshman's suggestion of moving the SSP Message Header Length
>field to a common location is a good resolution of the issues raised
>with concern to handling DLSw TCP data streams and flexibility for
>defining new SSP headers in the future.  How about making the reserved
>byte an offset x'F' (the byte that follows the Message Type in the
>Information Message) the new header length field?   I believe byte 1
>is the intended home of the Flow Control group's pacing flags field.
>
>Steve